New Theory of Flight springs from our resolution of d'Alembert's paradox formulated in 1755, published in JMFM 2008, and shows for the first time that both simulation and understanding of the miracle of flight is possible with present computer and brain power. As such it has every chance of becoming a landmark article, as expressed by the Editorial Foreword:

The special character of this article requires some comments by the editors on the purpose of its publication. ...the implications of the argument and the accompanying novel numerical computations are of such far reaching importance for technical fluid dynamics, particularly for the computation of certain features in turbulent flow, that it deserves serious consideration. The main purpose of this publication is therefore to stimulate critical discussion among the experts in this area about the relevance and justification of the view taken in this article and its possible consequences for modeling and computation of turbulent flow.

fredag 23 oktober 2015

I have long expected to see a connection between jazz improvisation and computer games as a form of interactive computation where each player interacts with the other players as the music/computation evolves. Viewing music as a form of computation, jazz improvisation thus corresponds to interactive computation and here a jazz playing robot poses an interesting challenge to interactive computation or human-computer interaction.

onsdag 14 oktober 2015

an international panel of judges is planning to prohibit talk of “climate skepticism.” The article by Christopher Booker said the legal change was endorsed by Prince Charles of the U.K., and would revolutionize the concept of free speech once and for all.

Since it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law.

söndag 11 oktober 2015

Luciano Floridis concludes in The Philosophy of Information that the world on microscopic scales cannot be neither discrete nor continuous, since each of these standpoints is contradictory, but can maybe instead be described by Informational Structural Realism (ISR) as scale dependent structural description leaving out the true nature of the elements forming the structure. ISR can be viewed as synthesis of the discrete and continuous without internal contradiction and thus potentially as a useful world view.

This is nothing but the finite element method in multi-scale form, originally developed in structural mechanics, as scale dependent discretization of continuous differential equations, where a true physical realisation of the finite elements is not possible nor necessary.

This connects to my attempt to describe a complex world including turbulence and quantum mechanics as analog finite precision computation simulated by digital finite precision computation, where the flow of information under computation represents ISR and the true physical nature of the analog computation is unknowable, but irrelevant.

Why is then both discrete and continuous physics impossible? Because both requires infinite resolution: a discrete point particle or discontinuity has zero size and a continuum has no smallest size. Thus both discrete and continuous physics requires infinitely small resolution and thus an infinite amount of information on any scale. If you don´t think this is asking for too much, then you should reconsider your notion of the infinite.

fredag 2 oktober 2015

There is no known physics theory that is true at every scale—there may never be.

When quantum mechanics is combined with relativity, it turns out, rather unexpectedly in fact, that the detailed nature of the physical laws that govern matter and energy actually depend on the physical scale at which you measure them.

So, what is going on? Is a universal theory a legitimate goal, or will scientific truth always be scale-dependent?

The trouble Krauss is here talking about is that relativity theory and quantum mechanics are contradictory, a deep trouble which has brought modern physics into a deep crisis. Krauss asks if a universal theory as a theory somehow without contradictions, is thinkable and then crushes all hope that it could take the form of string theory:

There is no example so far where an extrapolation as grand as that associated with string theory, not grounded by direct experimental or observational results, has provided a successful model of nature. In addition, the more we learn about string theory, the more complicated it appears to be, and many early expectations about its universalism may have been optimistic.

Krauss concludes with the pessimistic message that a universal theory as a theory without internal contradictions, is beyond reach for the human mind. The logic is that since both relativity and quantum theory are correct but unfortunately contradictory, no universal theory theory without contradiction is possible.

But why is it not thinkable that relativity or quantum theory is not correct physics? My bet is relativity theory is incorrect physics, supported by in particular the fact that while quantum mechanics has been awarded a countless number of Nobel Prizes, none has been awarded to relativity theory, of course because nobody in the Nobel committee could ever understand anything of Einstein's curved space-time.

Another obstacle to a universal theory is that the nature of quantum mechanics is postulated to be fundamentally different from the continuum mechanics of macroscopic phenomena and as such is beyond description in terms of concepts understandable to the human mind such as the partial differential equations making continuum mechanics understandable. But this is an ad hoc postulate blocking progress. How come that physicists can be so sure that the world of atoms is beyond human comprehension as expressed by Richard Feynman:

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

So, after all a TOE may be thinkable, if only we do not limit the thinking by relativity and quantum theory beyond reach for the human mind.

It is maybe not necessary as scientist to be paralyzed by ideas and concepts beyond human understanding as characteristics of religion.